There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: PD on 3 May 2010 11:53 On May 1, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 1, 11:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Nice "try" PD: Like I've told you a hundred times, PARAPHRASE, or > copy, what you want me to read. You, an imbecile, don't qualify to > tell me (who's off the top of the I. Q. chart) what I should do. You > can only dream that I would care to follow your instructions, in any > regard. NoEinstein OK, so I take it that you refuse to do one of these steps 1) Vacate your chair 2) Take your butt to the library 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned 4) Read either because you're incapable of it or you are too lazy. Sorry, but I am not a nursemaid, and I don't cut other people's meat for them, and I don't serve their meat on a rubber coated spoon, even if they whine that they won't eat it any other way. Starve, if you like. > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I, sir, am King of the Hill in science. > > > If you would like for the readers to see some "textbook definition" > > > which you claim is more valid than my F. & W. Standard College > > > Dictionary, then copy and paste your definition for the world to see. > > > *** Put up or shut up, PD! *** You've done nothing to even hint that > > > you have objectivity in scienceonly empty bluster. NoEinstein > > > Good grief. OK, I'll come part way. You do some work too. > > Go to the library and ask for Giancoli, Physics, any edition more > > recent than than the 4th. > > See sections 2-2 and 2-3. In my copy, that's pages 21-23. > > There, I have made the search bonehead simple for you. All you have to > > do is > > 1) Vacate your chair > > 2) Take your butt to the library > > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > > 4) Read >
From: PD on 3 May 2010 11:57 On May 2, 11:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 2, 4:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: You ask the right sort of questions to be a 'specialist' > or a 'technician'. I'm a generalist. Those can tell the two former > types what needs being done. In short, I get the "whole picture". I > wouldn't seek NSF funding for any projects, because I know that such > organization, and the NSB are corrupt. While you, apparently, were > caught up in statistics, numbers, and funding trivia, I was actually > figuring out how the various pieces of the universe work in unison. > So, don't fault me for my processes. If you were a pragmatist, you > wouldn't dare. NoEinstein > Since you can't seem to find any of my original posts, I'll reproduce one here for you: ========================================================================= I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department to discuss his ideas because she thought he was brilliant. The department chair, in his infinite wisdom, sent the young man to me. For a half hour, the lad drew pictures on my chalkboard of a new unified field theory. No math, mind you, just a lot of enthusiastic description and squiggly figures and semiplausible notions. Still chewing on my sandwich, I stopped him at one point and asked him to calculate something ... anything ... with his model -- or at least set it up so that I knew in principle the calculation could be done. He looked at me in all earnestness and said, "Oh, I view myself as sort of the Einstein type. I come up with the Big Idea, and then I let everyone else work out the details." I stopped chewing, swallowed carefully, and composed my thoughts. For the next half hour, we discussed what it really meant to be a physicist, how Einstein had to study the state of the art for years before even being ready to work on a Big Idea, and what would be required of this young man on his journey to becoming a theoretical physicist, which is what he wanted more than anything else in the world. Unquestionably, he was shaken. He had no idea that it took more than just intelligence and a blinding stroke of insight. I have no qualms about having directed him this way. Any profession in the world requires an extraordinary amount of work to become tops in the field, and much of it is grinding toil. Physics is no different. Anyone who enters into such a field should not be shielded from this information, lest the moment of disillusionment come after years of wasted, dreamy ignorance. The good ones will embrace the challenge. The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of how Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein fans recall, for example, that the same year he was publishing his seminal papers, he was struggling to get his PhD thesis approved, and he was working at a side job because no one at the university could find money to support him. In this 100th anniversary of some of his singular accomplishments, I think it's worthwhile reminding people about how much hard work, how much formal training, and how much time spent simply learning, went into those accomplishments. PD ============================================ NoEinstein, you are a deluded, egomaniacal basketcase.
From: PD on 3 May 2010 12:02 On May 1, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Several times before you have referenced > Newton's ERRANT F = ma. Ah, excellent, just so it's clear. You're problem then isn't with Einstein and the physics of the 20th century. It's with all of physics since the 1600's. Basically, it's just ALL plain wrong, everything that is taught to schoolchildren from the 3rd grade on. And you, in your infinite genius, have discovered this by the power of reason. > Most equations that contain a "mass" can be > changed to be a UNIT mass of one pound (or whatever). The "textbook" > definition of MOMENTUM is F = mv. I'm sorry, but that equation appears in no textbook anywhere. If you disagree, cite the textbook and the page number. > The latter mass can also be changed > to be a unit mass of one pound (or whatever). SO... Since both > equations are forces, First of all, you just said it was an equation for momentum (though you got it wrong), not a force. Good heavens, John, you've gotten confused two equations for two different quantities, you can't even get one written down right and you call the other one wrong. You're a mental case, John. > set the right half of the two equations to be > EQUAL, or: ma = mv. Since the masses are both one pound unit masses, > then, the resulting equation says: ACCELERATION = VELOCITY! Even an > imbecile like you, PD, should realize that velocity, (or say) feet/ > sec, isn't the same as feet/second EACH second! > > Ironically, I was studying for college physics when I realized the > conflict between those two equations. That same week, I concluded > that the entire chapter on mechanics was screwed up. Newton' "Law", > in words, says: For every uniform force, there is one and only one > associated acceleration. The correct equation for that should have > been F = a, provided, of course, that the relationships between those > two variables are stipulated, or are included in a less generalized > equation. > > The equation for MOMENTUM, F = mv, is correct! For objects in free > fall, or objects that are accelerating, the correct kinetic energy > formula is my own: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The latter replaces > both KE = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2 / beta. What contributions have > YOU made to science, PD? Ha. ha, HA! NoEinstein > > >
From: Ralph Garbage on 3 May 2010 12:49 On May 3, 7:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 1, 11:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Nice "try" PD: Like I've told you a hundred times, PARAPHRASE, or > > copy, what you want me to read. You, an imbecile, don't qualify to > > tell me (who's off the top of the I. Q. chart) what I should do. You > > can only dream that I would care to follow your instructions, in any > > regard. NoEinstein > > OK, so I take it that you refuse to do one of these steps > 1) Vacate your chair > 2) Take your butt to the library > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > 4) Read > either because you're incapable of it or you are too lazy. > > Sorry, but I am not a nursemaid, and I don't cut other people's meat > for them, and I don't serve their meat on a rubber coated spoon, even > if they whine that they won't eat it any other way. Starve, if you > like. > He wouldn't accept it if you did. The ghost of Einstein so severely vexes John that he's paralyzed with the fear of having to face the obvious fact that he's very, very stupid. The only thing remarkable about John is just how vacant he is.
From: Ralph Garbage on 3 May 2010 12:53
On May 3, 8:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Several times before you have referenced > > Newton's ERRANT F = ma. > > Ah, excellent, just so it's clear. You're problem then isn't with > Einstein and the physics of the 20th century. It's with all of physics > since the 1600's. Basically, it's just ALL plain wrong, everything > that is taught to schoolchildren from the 3rd grade on. And you, in > your infinite genius, have discovered this by the power of reason. > > > Most equations that contain a "mass" can be > > changed to be a UNIT mass of one pound (or whatever). The "textbook" > > definition of MOMENTUM is F = mv. > > I'm sorry, but that equation appears in no textbook anywhere. > If you disagree, cite the textbook and the page number. > > > The latter mass can also be changed > > to be a unit mass of one pound (or whatever). SO... Since both > > equations are forces, > > First of all, you just said it was an equation for momentum (though > you got it wrong), not a force. > > Good heavens, John, you've gotten confused two equations for two > different quantities, you can't even get one written down right and > you call the other one wrong. > > You're a mental case, John. > He's just extremely stupid. |